The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Royal Navy programmes Project VIXEN and Project ARK ROYAL are no longer in use, with both efforts now absorbed into a broader Maritime Aviation Transformation Strategy.
In written answers published on 11 February, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the two projects have been incorporated into the Royal Navy’s Maritime Aviation Transformation Strategy (MATX), which he described as a plan to deliver a Fleet Air Arm that is “uncrewed where possible; crewed where necessary.” Pollard said MATX is intended to support the development of a “Hybrid Air Wing”, as recommended in the Strategic Defence Review.
Responding to questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge on the progress of Project VIXEN and Project Ark Royal, Pollard said: “Projects VIXEN and ARK ROYAL are no longer in use.” Instead, he said the Ministry of Defence has established a new initiative, Project VANQUISH, designed to demonstrate a short take-off and landing, jet-powered Autonomous Collaborative Platform capable of operating from a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier.
According to Pollard, the project is intended to generate evidence to support the future development of uncrewed fixed-wing aircraft for carrier operations, while avoiding the need to install Assisted Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE), such as catapults and arrestor gear, on the UK’s carriers. “The project will generate evidence to inform the development of uncrewed fixed wing aircraft for operation from Royal Navy aircraft carriers without requiring the installation of Assisted Launch and Recovery Equipment (ALRE), subject to Defence Investment Plan decisions,” he said.
The shift marks a notable change from earlier Royal Navy thinking around Ark Royal, which in previous years was associated with more extensive modifications to the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to support launch and recovery systems for high-performance uncrewed aircraft.
In 2023, Royal Navy officials had publicly outlined a vision for future carrier aviation that included potential retrofitting of arrestor gear and assisted launch equipment, alongside concepts for a new generation of uncrewed strike and support platforms.
Shortly to be renamed ‘Project Vanished’
It is in line with current naval project naming naming
Constellation -> Consternation -> Cancellation
now we have
Vanquish -> Vanish
Maybe RN & USN are more coordinated than we thought?
Or maybe it is just a line from a Bond film?
So Vanquish really is the MoD searching for a way of getting drones on the carrier without arrestor gear.
Not sure why can’t do barrier recovery at least. Complicates too much? Or not really needed for slow thing with brakes.
Can’t load a drone safely with a barrier with a full or half payload maybe
Sounds like that.
Very hard to understand why other than lack of ££££.
Really very dangerous to do other than VTOL – there is a reason for the angled runway and it wasn’t for fun.
Problem is because QEC has two island the parking on the roof has to be down both sides which makes it very dangerous.
I think the Navy see themselves with a STOL air wing of Vanquish, Protector and F35 SRVL. It’s the same argument as B Vs C; they save on the carrier itself in order to procure more but compromised aircraft.
Re safety and the deck layout, the port sponson is hardly ever used in pictures when they are doing actual flying operations as the helo/landing spots are to port of the runway. So an angled deck wouldn’t make too much of a difference.
Ah, everything if fine then. All “absorbed” so another new planning group, no need to buy anything and all is right with the Whitehall world.
“Projects Vixen and Ark Royal are no longer In Use”.
Pffff 🤔🙄🤦♂️
Likely all to do with cash. Talking of which, i am struggling with the bbcs latest report into chaos islands and how it averages at 100m per year when every payment is more than 100m. Wish they would probe and explain more.
The UK will hand sovereignty of the archipelago to Mauritius, and lease back Diego Garcia for a period of 99 years – at an average cost of £101m a year.
The UK will pay £165m in each of the first three years. From years four to 13, it will pay £120m a year. After that, payments will be linked to inflation.
Bargain ain’t it🙄
I had assumed the US paid rent for the Island, but it seems not. Why the heck have we agreed this deal without some contribution from the country that actually uses it. We may as well have handed it back for free, or at least threatened it so the US would pay up.
The reason it’s listed as £101 million is because of what’s called GDP deflation provided by the OBR. Because the economy grows over those 100 years the effective cost compared to UK GDP is less. So to give a value in today’s terms the “pain” to UK budgets is the equivalent is £101m per year in today’s economy.
This isn’t some conspiracy or poor journalism from the BBC, it’s just the most accurate way to present the cost from the OBR.
Ultimately 100 years is a really really long time so you have to make these adjustments so it makes sense.
So, smoke and mirrors
In not a single year is it 101m, its starting point is realistically over 120m, and then it increases in line with inflation each year.
I feel like I just explained this. But it’s not smoke and mirrors, it’s trying to give a cost that makes sense in today’s terms.
We will pay £120m a year plus inflation for the final 86 years. To put that in context £120m 86 years ago is £5.9b today! So 100 years from now we will be paying ~£6b per year to Mauritius. But of course it would be far more misleading to say that figure, so it’s better to put in today’s terms.
Which is why £101m is the most accurate way to present it, and it’s what all long term government costs do.
If you want to complain about smoke and mirrors then I can say that when the government talks about massive long term investments they always “forget” to make that adjustment so it sounds like a bigger number.
If GDP consistently underperforms inflation:
The payment becomes progressively more burdensome. It consumes a growing share of tax revenue.
It could require:
Higher taxes
More borrowing
Cuts elsewhere
Even though £100m sounds small today, over a century the relative burden compounds if the economy doesn’t keep pace. And even more worrying is the % of the defence budget is may end up consuming. They deal currently cost us the same as one fighter jet per year or 15 more upgraded Challengers or 1 new T31 every 3 years. It gets worse every year growth is less than inflation.
GDP hasn’t, and rarely does underperform inflation though. GDP figures are after taking off inflation. Only in a recession is GDP below inflation by definition. So as I said, the burden gets less and less over time as GDP grows (over inflation).
It seems to me that the concept of GDP deflation only works if the economy grows at a rate that is consistently higher than the ongoing rate of inflation. That’s a huge assumption for the Government to make. It’s not an assumption any private company could get away with.
If the assumption is wrong then the ‘cost’ goes up. And guess who pays it.
It’s not a huge assumption at all, in the last 100 years growth has only been below inflation about 12 times. And has usually had a boom afterwards. All private companies make these same assumptions.
Of course they have to use growth projections, if growth is lower than expected then the cost will be more significant, but if growth is better than expected then it will be much less.
Just to remind people that might not be aware, GDP figures are always adjusted for inflation. Ie 4% growth and 3% inflation would give a 1% GDP figure. This means the cost of this deal will be easier and easier each year.
“According to Pollard, the project is intended to generate evidence to support the future development of uncrewed fixed-wing aircraft for carrier operations”.
A direct translation of this crap is ‘kick it down the road past 2029, along with every other major unfunded programme’.
Probably end up getting Strix, or XBAT if that ever comes to anything. I’m expecting bad news from the DIP if this is the direction,.